Yep, especially since about 20% more boys than girls are born, thanks to the one child per family policy, the traditional preference for male children, and selective abortion.
US asks China to explain why it needs aircraft carrier
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
We haven't even started to take care of our issues at home. With the droughts and economic crisis in other parts of the world (Europe, Asia especially), our home crisis might take second place for a while, we (North America) have and can afford food.
I don't see how anyone can conclude it would fly circles around an F22 when the engines haven't even been developed yet.
Plus, it's made in China. I'm not losing any sleep.
The US is falling behind China when it comes to high tech manufacturing...obviously they aren't just making soccer balls and cheap toys. They make those too, but that's not all they make. It's an obvious next step as their growth has lead to large increases in wages, which hurts the productivity of the low tech manufacturing everyone thinks about.
They are making semi-conductors. The US is the only country with more class II and III biomedical manufacturers than China has. Roche, Bayer, Novartis, Johnson and Johnson, all have invested in Research and Development inside China.
Made in China doesn't mean it's sold in the dollar store.
China's gizmo:
The assassin's mace: China's anti-satellite weapons
Glee and ecstasy soon turn to shock as monitor screens suddenly go blank. Then all communication via satellites goes dead. China has drawn its second "trump card" (the assassin's mace) by activating its maneuverable "parasite" micro-satellites that have unknowingly clung to vital (NORAD) radar and communication satellites and have either jammed, blinded or physically destroyed their hosts.
This is complemented by space mines that maneuver near adversary satellites and explode. Secret Chinese and Russian ground-based anti-satellite laser weapons also blind or bring down US and British satellites used for C4ISR (command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance). And to ensure redundancy and make sure that the adversary C4ISR system is completely "blinded" even temporarily, hundreds of select Chinese and Russian information warriors (hackers) specifically trained to attack their adversary's C4ISR systems simultaneously launch their cyber offensive.
For a few precious minutes, the US and UK advancing carrier battle groups are stunned and blinded by the "mace", ie, a defensive weapon used to temporarily blind a stronger opponent. But the word mace has another meaning; one which is deadlier and used in combination with the first.
A mace can be a spiked war club used in olden times to knock out an opponent. Applied in modern times, the spikes of the assassin's mace refer to currently unstoppable supersonic cruise missiles capable of sinking aircraft carriers that are in China's inventory; complemented by equally unstoppable "squall" or SHKVAL rocket torpedoes and regular 65 cm-diameter wake-homing torpedoes, bottom-rising rocket-propelled mines, and "obsolete" warplanes converted into unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) firing anti-ship missiles from standoff positions and finally dive-bombing into the heart of the US and UK aircraft carrier armada.
Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.
There are far too many what ifs in the military scenario the article predicts. First it assumes that the US will stage a preemptive strike against China. That was a scenario that was continually postulated during the Cold War between the US and the USSR, but it is also one that did not happen and at times there was even greater provocation.
Second in the highly unlikely eventuality of a US attack, it assumes that China's military hardware is actually superior to that of the US, a highly unlikely scenario given the fact that the US spends almost as much on military research alone as China spends on its entire defence budget. In fact the article reads more like a Hollywood take on an Ian Fleming novel than on reality.
Third, the article assumes that the US military is so utterly stupid that it cannot properly gauge Chinese military capability. Almost certainly if the author of the article is aware of these mythical Chinese weapons then the US is as well.
In fact the only semblance of reality in the article was the analysis of China as an economic power. That is almost certainly accurate and if it holds true, China may eventually use some of that wealth to further develop its military. However, that will happen only if the Chinese decide to make the same mistake the US has made and pour vast amounts of resources into military infrastructure. In the meantime China shows signs that it is slowly edging toward a less rigid form of government. In fact the movement toward democracy is probably inevitable given the face of modern technology and the interrelated nature of today's world. And it is worth noting that no democracy has ever gone to war against another democracy.
Here's one: "None of your ga'damn business, where's our money you owe us?"
Why do they "Need" this kind of equipment?
I don't know.... why does the US "Need" this kind of equipment?
China is a new super power nation, yet the UK, Russia, the US all have their own carriers and nobody is complaining.... now they're trying to update themselves and be on par with these other nations and the US wants them to give them answers as to why they have a carrier?
They're not obligated to give them any answers and they'd be lucky if China didn't just say it's a larger ice cream factory.... what does it matter?
It's an aircraft carrier.... it's for launching aircraft from a mobile source.
next.....
Nope.... because that's confidential due to "National Security" :roll:
Ha ha..... good luck with that. I'd love to see the US try and pull that stunt and try and "Take Out" China. Even if they were using pea shooters, the sheer size of the nation and the overall population of China, the US would have to draft every single citizen and move them all to China to try and occupy them...... plus the US military already being spread out due to Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and many other areas of the world, trying to pull a stunt like that would be an epic fail.
And if China decided to attack the US and land a large number of troops on US soil, the US would be so spread out, they simply wouldn't be able to defend unless they nuked a few spots of their own country to take their numbers down a bit.
Which is probably why the US hasn't "Taken Them Out" yet.... they simply don't have the capabilities to even try.
Hell, the US would have a hard time trying to "Take Out" North Korea, forget trying to Take Out China, lol.
.... or did you mean Pakistan?
Again, good luck with that.
Last edited:
There goes Prax again... getting out his KY
squish squish
What are they going to do swim? Use a 1980's, Soviet Era mothballed, jump jet aircraft carrier to transport millions of troops?
How silly you can be sometimes.
How's Libya going? lol
Last edited:
Not bad for a bunch of putzes with zero military training, having very little heavy arms, no real leadership or supply chain. Now that we've shot down all the flying tanks and flying civil infrastructure like power and water it should be a cake walk for these putzes.
Syria is next. NATO is calling for "freedom fighters" to rise against the Syrian leadership. If memory serves me well, the last time there was a call for a "freedom fighter" brigade it didn't work out so well in the end.
Yes I saw the humor in that. NATO was supposed to provide a no fly zone... then came the pictures of blown up tanks, trucks and buildings.
Typical........."look over there". Unfortunately for you and yours, not everyone is as stupid as your neighbors.
Just pointing out the hypocricy Gerry. People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks know what I mean?
Really, so you're directly and evenly comparing Canada's military forays with american.
In Libya... heck yes. What is the difference? Even the Balkan Wars.
Did Libya attack Canada? What about the Serbs?
Why did Canada get the job? Would another war have pissed off too many Americans so Canada did you a favour or are we there for BP(Talisman)?
That's not what I was saying. I suspect you know that, given I don't think we should be in Libya.
We are right there with you!
Clearly Canada wanted it. They could have refused to take the lead.
What exactly... us bombing wing to wing with Canada and all the others or Canada taking the lead?
And Libya threatened Canada how?